In reality, it is income redistribution from consumers to the firms with the most clout in Washington.

__________________
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

We have records of temperature based on indirect measurements dating back many thousands of years. You cannot in the same breath claim we don't have knowledge of historical temperatures and simultaneously abuse that knowledge to claim we are dealing with a natural fluctuation. The natural fluctuation hypothesis does not fit with any known climate cycle, and the rate of increase in temperature is pretty much unprecedented. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it reduces the amount of radiation that can escape the atmosphere when absorbed by the earth and re-emitted. Do you dispute this? If so, on what basis? Do you dispute that over the last 150 years there has been a dramatic increase in the emission of CO2? If so, on what basis? The effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are a matter of fundamental physics, the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is a matter of simple observation. Certainly the degree of severity is open to debate, but even the lowest serious estimates indicate substantial warming over the next century.

__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

"We have records of "indirect" measurements dating back thousands of years."

And you will believe and propogate these measurements as long as they help your agenda of socialism and income re-distribution. This is exactly the same reason I will not believe this science, because it does not promote liberty and freedom. Your team uses this kind of science to rule over the masses and the evidence that suggests that climate changes are a natural phenomenon is shunned and dismissed as conspiracy theory.

Case in point.., We are no longer talking about "global warming".., it is now "Climate change". As if the climate ion the earth has ever been stagnate!

No. But if the greenhouse gases keep the heat from escaping..... how does it let the heat get in? If it is a barrier for escape, how can it not be a barrier from intrusion?

As much as you would like to believe we have so much affect on the atmosphere, the sun is responsible for the majority of the heating and cooling that occurrs on the planet.

Again, NO. Have you taken the time to do a little research on your own or do you just mimmick the popular view of the earthworshippers?

Take a look at the increase in volcanic activity of the same 150 years.

For example; In May of 1980, Mt. St. Helens blew her top.

"With the equivalence of 19 atomic bombs the size of those that fell on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the mountain blew out over 1314 feet of it's north face. The explosion precipitated a massive avalanche that rapidly released volcanic gases, including H2O, SO2, and CO2, into the atmosphere. The blast obliterated 150,000 acres of forest and killing every wild animal that wasn't underground. Hurricane force winds approached the speed of sound, searing the landscape at tempuratures up to 800 degrees Fahrenheit. A mushroom cloud rose 15 miles into the atmosphere. Daylight turned dark. Within two weeks the ash would circle the globe." [National Parks magazine, Spring 2009]

It is observed and then interpretted to fit one's already concieved paradigm.

And so the debate should be had. Unfortunately we only hear from the wacko-left because the wacko-left "press" controls what we hear.

And here we get to the crux of the arguement. Why do you get to determine what a "serious" estimate is? When I gave you a legitamate web-site you immeadiately blew it off as "Conspiracy Theory" As you will, to any evidence that sheds doubt on your preconceived belief. And that is where this arguement will come to rest.

This thread was not about global warming.., it is about a National Sales Tax.

The Consitution of the United States does not give the Federal Government the right to socially engineer it's population through taxation.

I support a National Sales Tax that is the same for every person making a purchase in this country or bring goods into the country.

__________________
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

What argument? I see him giving you the evidence, and you going Lalalalalalala with your fingers in your ears.

__________________
" ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

" ... this egregiously ignorant christian ... Archangel 03.09.09

“Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

Because the Sun emits radiation across a broad spectrum. CO2 absorbs radiation efficiently in a more narrow spectrum. The earth absorbs a broad spectrum of the Sun's radiation and emits it in a more narrow spectrum. A more significant proportion of the spectrum is blocked by CO2 for outgoing radiation than incoming. Additionally, the heat retention works by individual photons striking CO2 molecules and raising electrons up an energy level (or several energy levels). When the electron drops down an energy level (a random process), a photon is emitted in a random direction, and will be easily picked up by another CO2 molecule as its energy levels have the same spacing. Add to this the fact that CO2 molecules move around in the atmosphere, and you have a process by which it is easy for energy to enter the atmosphere, and difficult for it to leave. CO2 blocks part of the spectrum, water vapour some more, methane another part, flouro-carbons another.

In case you're wondering, this was what I meant about you not understanding the science. You don't have a basic grasp of quantum mechanics. That's ok, not everyone has studied Theoretical Physics to Masters level, but don't try to dismiss what you clearly don't have a clue about.

As for volcanic eruptions being responsible for the rise in CO2 concentrations, that is patently absurd. A description of a volcanic eruption does not provide any evidence to support your assertion that volcanic activity has increased.
Not only that, but volcanoes produce ~130 million tonnes a year, with atmospheric levels being around 3 000 000 million tonnes. In 200 years, volcanoes wouldn't be able to raise concentrations by more than about 5 parts per million, whereas since 1832 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen by more than 100 parts per million, due to the contribution to CO2 levels from human activity, around 27 000 million tonnes. Even if volcanic activity has increased 10 fold, it still wouldn't account for the increase.
Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

Jo this is the second debate you and I have had, and once again you have completely shifted the focus. This time from taxation to global warming.

As a citizen of the UK you have absolutely no foundation on which to stand to preach about taxes!

Furthermore, you come here with this psuedo intellectual blah blah about "Theoretical Physics to a Masters Level" as if I should fall to my knees because while I have worked for most of my adult life, you have chosen to sit behind a school desk and then presume that I should not dismiss what I don't have a clue about.

You have chosen to listen to what you have heard in a classroom and "dismiss" all other opposing views. The US EPA has just released a report that indicates that every planet in our solar system is undergoing a "climate change". "Warming" to be specific. I'm sure that was caused by the farting cows on earth.

ABC news; a schill for the Obama clones and the earthworshippers issued the following report.... The Global Warming Myth? - ABC News

But I guess, unless I study every subject I want to voice an opinion on, I should study it to a "Masters Level", or keep my opinoins to myself.

If that goes for me, then it should apply to everyone else as well !!

__________________
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

I'd settle for you actually challenging the substance of what I'm saying. I don't expect everyone to have studied it in great detail, but if you're going to disagree you should at least be able to be specific.

And no, not every planet in the solar system is undergoing global warming. Some are, due to various different reasons, not one uniting reason.

__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

Jo, you have not once argued about the substance of global warming.

All you ever do is ask for people to nominate anti-anthropogenic-global-warming scientists, so that rather than discuss the issues you can launch into ad-hominems about them.

"come up with 10 (out of the many you claim exist) people who do understand the science to support your position"

This has been your standard "argument for global warming" since day 1, and its half the reason the more I hear about it, the more I am convinced it is a fraud.

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

Really? That post there was imaginary was it?

__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

These are fairly tangential issues, the debate over global warming isn't about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.

Your idea of debate is to ask people to list scientist's names so you can then attack them because they have had some historical association with a for-profit body, or failing that, look for some other sin to accuse them of.

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

It's what Steamroller was denying:
I was responding to the challenge given, as I did with regard to emissions from volcanoes. If Steamroller (or you for that matter) would like to come up with some evidence that contradicts this (because this is essential not just providing an alternative hypothesis) then that would be lovely.

__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

Everything you have said about the physics of CO2 is true, at least so far as I can tell.

But it doesn't support the theory of catstrophic global warming. It doesn't tell us whether the Earth's temperature will rise by 0.0001 degrees, or 3000 degrees, if we release X amount of gas.

(by the way, listing the names of scientists that support the idea isn't an argument either)

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

keep burning coal and see what happens.

After all, those scientists who predict a catastrophic result if we keep doing business as usual, must be wrong, right? It is a 'green' conspiracy and Al Gore its mad prophet.

A list of scientists who support a theory does not prove the theory. You can with the list in hand Google their arguments though.

There are two choices :

we assume they are right and act accordingly, cutting CO2 emissions to the bone and if they were wrong it will be a costly exercise but nothing we can't not afford in the long run. Better safe than sorry, so to say.

we assume they are wrong and act accordingly burning coal till kingdom come. If we are right, nothing lost and the economy didn’t suffer.
But if we were wrong ? well, at least we can show symbiote the graph showing the relationship between levels of CO2 and temperature rises before our civilization as we know it crashes and dies.

Of course, then she would say: “why didn’t you do something, if you knew it would happen?”
Answer: because of millions of think alike symbiotes, there was a never a political will to do something about cutting CO2 emissions until it was too late. We all waited and experimented with Mother Earth.
We gambled and we lost
Goodbye losers.

The arguments usually amount to:

Here is a list of other scientists / authorities who believe it, therefore you should too.

I've in the past wondered whether this argument was made by scientists simply because they thought the public was too stupid to understand their true reasoning, but dig deeper and you find a hollow core.

or

The utilitarian argument you put forth, which is pretty much Pascal's Wager rephrased with Environmentalism in place of God. But that argument neglects the costs, which will be measured in human lives in the 3rd world. Trying to estimate how many is a fool's errand. It also ignores the fact utilitarianism is a bunch of garbage.

I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy", since the people advocating anthropogenic global warming genuinely do believe in it.

__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi

That is not so. If you care to read The New Scientist and even general magazines as The New Yorker you will find that global warming was not a God given revelation to scientists nor did they pull it out from the air.
On the contrary they came to the conclusion after decades of studies and collecting data.

What do you think will be the costs to the poor of this world (the vast majority) if nothing is done, and the predictions of the scientists come true? (and they are already coming true, faster than anticipated)

If scientists were only interested in being able to say--when it was too late: "I told you so" and did not prompt governments to act NOW! then what would you say to them when the end was nigh?

You are so unscientific as the Bible bashers, and who of course, (most of them) align with you in the issue of climate change (it sounds so much better than 'global warming' doesn't it?)

I never took you for a scientific Luddite before but ...